nanog mailing list archives
Re: PI vs PA Address Space
From: bmanning () ISI EDU
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 10:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Eventually routers stopped being able to handle full routing in 16Mb of memory, and suddenly the very real cost of carrying routing information around became clear to a number of providers: how much did replacing a bunch of mostly-AGS+ routers with 64Mb Cisco 7000-series routers cost?
This memory jump has occured more than once. I remember 4 and 8 meg routers. 16 meg boxen were deamed large enough when they were created. The leap to 64 is just another step in the process.
nothing longer than /18 or /19 (it's /18 now, but it's not entirely inflexible, and dialogues continue) will have global scope.
As an aside, is anyone else besides Sprint behind this /18 model? I know that Sean is a big proponent but I have heard no other public comment on this. (well there was one, which indicated that the community had reached consenses on this point, which is why I ask.) --bill
Current thread:
- PI vs PA Address Space Daniel Karrenberg (May 17)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Mike Norris (May 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- PI vs PA Address Space Daniel Karrenberg (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Sean Doran (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Karl Denninger, MCSNet (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael Dillon (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Peter Berger (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Jerry Anderson (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael F. Nittmann (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Jerry Anderson (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space David R Conrad (May 19)
- PI vs PA Address Space Daniel Karrenberg (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space peter (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael F. Nittmann (May 19)